(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s not, but we’re not talking about merely assuming the Bible is false; we’re talking about using arguments that rely upon the assumption that the Bible is false in order to argue that the Bible is false, which IS begging the question.We are just gonna have to agree to disagree here Stat. Your take is that everything should be assumed to be true until proven false, and I think that one must not accept something as true until proven.
If it wasn't breeded into you at a younger age, I assume, that at some point you accepted that the bible was true. That was an assumption on your part. Now you seem to think that this assumption stands on equal footing as the default one shared by one that is not convinced. You don't seem to have any idea as to whether you are thinking forward or backwards at this point. Your logic is so wildly absurd that even you would reject it if it were offered to support a Hindu-Bible. Yet, you continue to say things like this...Do you ever go back and read some of the things you write? Take out "Bible" in your rebuttals and input "The Lord of The Rings" ..It looks something like this:
(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf in a Simulation Wrote: It’s not, but we’re not talking about merely assuming The Lord of the Rings is false; we’re talking about using arguments that rely upon the assumption that The Lord of the Rings is false in order to argue that the The Lord of The Rings is false, which IS begging the question.
I know you wouldn't accept this as a sensical statement, yet you say things like this all the time. You sound a lil crazy sir.
(August 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There, one sentence.
indeed